A simple argument shows that capitalism is theft and workers’ inalienable right to workplace democracy - 35 minute video
“David Ellerman: Neo-Abolitionism: Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons”
The talk argues that employment contract is invalid due to inalienable rights. Inalienable means can’t be given up even with consent. Workers’ inalienable rights are rooted in their joint de facto responsibility for all production in the firm
TLDR: When you commit a crime for an employer, you and the employer are responsible and must both receive the consequences. Even if you signed a contract saying you’re not liable – doesn’t matter; you can’t choose to be “not liable”. When you commit not-crime for an employer, the consequences (the payment/income from that work) are given entirely to the employer; they are treated as if they were 100% responsible/liable. Somehow, this time, you can separate yourself from liability with a contract.
The argument is: Either liability is totally inseparable from a person or it is totally separable. We can’t have “its inseparable but only if the person is committing a crime”.
Its worth mentioning: workers would also be liable for company failure; but that actually might be one of the best parts of this idea.
See, right now you can get hired to run a company, drive it straight into the ground with stupid decisions, get paid the whole time, and then leave the now-bankrupted company with no downside for yourself. That would no longer be allowed if you were held responsible for the company at a personal level.
I’m usually the one person in the Solarpunk who debates “capitalism==bad” titles. This was a solid video; I don’t think I have any critiques of the arguments. It gives me a lot to think about. The speaker does a good job at not being polarizing or sensationaliazing the topic; he simply presents the information without getting emotionally charged.
That’s in contrast to the Lemmy title, which I think is senasionalized/polarizing and a bit of an insult to the listener; telling them the conclusion they should have instead of assuming they’re smart enough to understand the consequences themselves. “Why workplace democracy is an inalienable right, and its incompatibility with capitalism” would be more appropriate title IMO.
Either way I’m glad this was posted.
Thanks for the feedback. Will try to keep that in mind when coming up with post titles
Wow, I really wasn’t expecting a positive response to my comment. You just made my day :D, thanks!
I thought the “inalienability” history lesson (~9min in) was interesting: that it began under the idea that you are responsible for your own beliefs, and cannot blame the priests who gave them to you (“inalienability of conscience”).
Simple != 35 minute video.
I’ve seen great arguments done in a 4 panel comic here on Lemmy.
I’m a little worried about the level of critical thinking around here if people really feel that “great” arguments can be expressed in a four panel comic.
The world is not simple, and memes can not make a valid worldview.
The world isn’t simple, but some arguments can be.
Simple is also different from easy.
The entire video isn’t required to understand the argument. The first 15 minutes are sufficient
This argument probably can be explained in a 4 panel comic.
Probably, something like:
1 side: an employer and employee cooperating to commit a crime, which results in both of them going to jail.
Other side: an employer and employee cooperating to produce a widget resulting in the employer solely appropriating 100% of the property rights to the widget and liabilities for used-up inputsYes, I’ve seen that argument against capitalism as a 4 panel comic in many forms over the past year on Lemmy but I can’t find it now.
I think even the Everett True Lemmy has had done it.
I have never found a meme that suitably emphasizes the responsibility aspect. Responsibility plays an essential role in the underlying argument due to the peculiarity that responsibility can’t be transferred from person to person even with consent. You find memes about workers deserving the entire value of their labor, but none that emphasize responsibility and workers’ property rights to the literal produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs rather than just their value
